This house believes that creating green jobs is a sensible aspiration for governments.

Our sponsors provide financial support for this website. In the spirit of open debate, we invite them to offer their own perspective on the matter at hand. If they accept, they must declare any relationship or conflict of interest they have with the subject under discussion. They may not contact The Economist Group editorial staff once the debate begins, and they may not attempt to influence the moderation of the debate in any way. At all times, The Economist's editorial staff maintain full control of the debate's moderation.

Economist Debates adapt the Oxford style of debating to an online forum. The format was made famous by the 186-year-old Oxford Union and has been practised by heads of state, prominent intellectuals and galvanising figures from across the cultural spectrum. It revolves around an assertion that is defended on one side (the "proposer") and assailed on another (the "opposition") in a contest hosted and overseen by a moderator. Each side has three chances to persuade readers: opening, rebuttal and closing.

In Economist Debates, proposer and opposition each consist of a single speaker, experts in the issue at hand. We also invite featured guests to comment on the debate, not to take sides, but to provide context and informed perspective on the subject.

Those attending an Oxford-style debate participate in two ways: by voting to determine the debate's winner and by addressing comments to the moderator. The same holds here. As a reader, you are encouraged to vote. As long as the debate is open, you may change your vote as many times as you change your mind. And you are encouraged to air your own views by sending comments to the moderator. These should be relevant to the motion, the speakers' statements or the observations of featured guests. And they must be addressed directly to the moderator, who will single out the most compelling for discussion by the speakers.

Closing statements

Yes

Van Jones

VAN JONES Author, "The Green-Collar Economy"

Van Jones is a globally recognized, award-winning pioneer in human rights and the clean-energy economy. He is a co-founder of three successful non-profit organisations: the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Color of Change and Green For All. He is the bestselling author of the definitive book on green jobs, "The Green-Collar Economy". He served as the green jobs adviser in the Obama White House in 2009. He is currently a senior fellow at the Center For American Progress. Additionally, he is a senior policy adviser at Green For All. He also holds a joint appointment at Princeton University, as a distinguished visiting fellow in both the Center for African American Studies and in the Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

Author, "The Green-Collar Economy"

We cannot just let the market decide, because the market is failing in the case of clean energy and carbon emissions. But we have a responsibility to help the market work better. So yes, creating green jobs is a sensible aspiration for governments.

No

Andrew P. Morriss

ANDREW P. MORRISS H. Ross and Helen Workman Prof. of Law and Prof. of Business, University of Illinois College of Law

Andrew P. Morriss is the inaugural H. Ross and Helen Workman Professor of Law and Professor of Business at University of Illinois College of Law. He is also a Research Fellow of the NYU Center for Labor and Employment Law, a Senior Fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center, Bozeman, Montana; a Senior Scholar at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University; and a regular visiting professor at Universidad Francisco Marroquín in Guatemala. Professor Morriss is a Senior Fellow for the Houston-based Institute for Energy Research (IER), which conducts historical research and evaluates public policies in the oil, gas, coal and electricity markets. He is the author or coauthor of over 50 book chapters and articles on environmental law, regulatory policy, and employment law as well as a coauthor (with Bruce Yandle and Andrew Dorchak) of Regulation by Litigation (Yale University Press, 2008) and coeditor (with Gerald Korngold) of Property Stories (Foundation Press, 2009).

H. Ross and Helen Workman Prof. of Law and Prof. of Business, University of Illinois College of Law

We do indeed have distorted and dysfunctional energy markets. But for us to do better today, either government officials must be wiser than their predecessors or special interests must have less influence. Neither is true.

Oliver Morton is The Economist's Senior Briefings Editor. He was previously the Energy and Environment Editor at the Newspaper. Before joining The Economist, he was the Chief News and Features Editor of Nature, the leading international scientific journal. He covers the energy business, climate science and policy, and other green issues. He is the author of "Eating the Sun: How Plants Power the Planet", a study of the meanings and implications of photosynthesis, and "Mapping Mars: Science, Imagination and the Birth of a World".

It has been an interesting debate, and a slightly surprising one, at least to me, in that the votes have moved in a quite different way from the comments. I haven't done a numerical tally, and some comments are nuanced, or gnomic, enough to defy categorisation (I particularly appreciated Suleymanovic's "I think this is wrong, but it may be correct"). But my impression is that the comments from the floor have tended to go Andrew Morriss's way. The votes, though, tell a different story, with a pretty good majority for Mr Morriss turning over the first few days into an even better majority for Mr Jones, and from then on pretty much refusing to budge. You still, though, have a chance to change that, should you wish to.

The debate has not moved on particularly far from its opening, with the parties looking for different, more telling reiterations of their positions rather than taking them in new directions. A difference in emphasis, though, was introduced by Dan Weiss's comments, which put the job creation that can be ascribed to green policies into the context of American competitiveness, a frame very popular at the moment with those trying to move climate legislation through the American Senate.

This approach—crudely put, the idea that green jobs are a finite resource, and that America is being outrun in the race to get as many of them as possible by China, which intends to dominate this part of the economy—adds a new element of fear and urgency to a side of the debate which otherwise has a win–win feel. Commenter Ellis Lee gave the point resonance by pointing to the greenery with which some Chinese companies are now trying to endow their skyscrapers. That said, the idea of competing for green jobs rather hides the more important difference between the two countries in this regard. Those skyscrapers are a reminder that China has a robustly growing economy, on the basis of which green job creation, like job creation of all sorts, will be considerably easier.

Another commenter, SonofBaraka, makes the interesting point that while government commitment to green jobs means some level of interference in the market, it might in the end reduce that interference by moving more and more people off grid and into self-sufficiency, obviating the need for much of the paraphernalia of regulations. This is not perhaps a compelling argument, but it did strike me as a fresh one in this context.

In its image of regulation withering away it would certainly not compel Mr Morriss, who has continued to make strong points about the enduring and often baleful legacy of past intervention. The distortion and subsidy endemic in the energy sector, which green-jobs advocates seek to shift to fit their agenda, have a history. That history is one of earlier policy entrepreneurs attempting to adapt the sector to their own needs, and special interests capturing those attempts. The inductive argument that what happened then, again and again, will happen now is not conclusive: induction never is, because things do change. But it is definitely powerful.

At the same time, Mr Jones has returned to the point that there is a separate, and prior, need to change the energy sector in response to fears about climate change, among other things. Given that this has to happen, and that the market will not bring it about unaided, seeking at the margins to increase employment as it does seems a no-brainer (which is not to say that the point's elaboration is not thoughtful). At the moment, he seems to be commanding your assent. And he might well have done so if the motion had been more precisely formulated, perhaps along the admirably clear-thinking lines that commenter KTehJE94S7 suggests: "It is desirable that governments adjust the policy environment in such a way such that jobs which consume fewer natural resources than they produce increase in number."

Van Jones is a globally recognized, award-winning pioneer in human rights and the clean-energy economy. He is a co-founder of three successful non-profit organisations: the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Color of Change and Green For All. He is the bestselling author of the definitive book on green jobs, "The Green-Collar Economy". He served as the green jobs adviser in the Obama White House in 2009. He is currently a senior fellow at the Center For American Progress. Additionally, he is a senior policy adviser at Green For All. He also holds a joint appointment at Princeton University, as a distinguished visiting fellow in both the Center for African American Studies and in the Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

It is important to understand the real question and not get caught up in hyperbole. I believe that it is sensible for government to explore the economic development potential of building a low-carbon economy. Andrew Morriss does not. I respect his arguments, but I believe passionately that he is mistaken. Here is why.

Today, we are challenged to rein in global warming emissions. The task is urgent and inescapable. But we can do it in any number of ways. We could wait before adapting our infrastructure, allowing our economic competitors to rebuild the foundation of their economies first and ceding the market for clean technology. We could put a price on carbon, but let the chips fall where they may in the rest of the economy, making no provisions for predictable adjustments on the path to transition. We could simply stop using energy altogether, I suppose. Or we could keep our heads in the sand, ignoring climate science, and suffer the costs of inaction.

We could do any of these things. Or we could do what I propose as a sensible path. We could take the tools that government already uses to encourage economic growth, and apply them to the challenge at hand. In so doing, we could help marshal both public and private resources to reinvent our energy system.

Governments already regulate and manage disputes through the judicial process. Mr Morriss concedes that this is a good thing. He praises environmental justice advocates for suing the TVA when it violated the Clean Water Act and threatened human health. But it is interesting to note that the courts are not a product of the market, and the right to clean water is not codified in the bylaws of a corporation. These are the foundations of public trust, upheld by government. They also allow for enforceable contracts, intellectual property rights and the protection of human health.

Governments already make public investments as well. In my last post, I mentioned rural electrification and the interstate highway system. Mr Morriss dismissed these examples, but look again. The environmental harms he cites are the product of our success in meeting our stated objectives: advancing mobility, and in providing affordable and reliable energy for all. Those were tough goals, and we met them.

The problem was not that government failed to achieve its ends. The problem was that the goals were incomplete and insufficient. There is nothing stopping us today from achieving equal success in rebuilding our energy system for affordability and reliability, while we pursue sustainability, community reconstruction, and greater access and opportunity.

Mr Morriss cites the benefits of cash prizes that use public funds to create incentives for clean cars, as a government tool that creates incentives for private investment. Is this a distortion of the market? Maybe, but it is an effort to encourage new business problem-solving in areas of great public need.

I am glad that we both agree that public prizes can help reduce dependence on oil. I would also add that passing fuel economy standards doubled the miles per gallon achieved by the nation's fleet. And they did this even as auto safety laws dramatically cut fatalities for our nation's drivers.

Mr Morriss is right that we should guard against the capture of government by special interests. But this is not a problem only in the energy sector. And the solution is not to throw up our hands. If we need a new round of lobbying and campaign finance reform, I would be happy to work with Mr Morriss to achieve that end.

Mr Morriss and I both like markets, but I fear he has too simplistic a view of their operation. Market failures are real, and no business acting alone can fix them. Today, information failures and negative externalities mean that people investing in coal plants do not bear their true economic costs. Split incentives mean that building owners outfit offices with inefficient boilers, even if it means higher costs for tenants and vastly more pollution for community members.

On the flip side, we systematically underinvest in good things, because the benefits are external to the investor. So each day we undersupply our economy with public goods like the skills of workers, community stability and, yes, clean renewable energy that benefits society at large.

As Nicholas Stern said in his famous study, climate change is likely to be one of the greatest cases of market failure in world history. We cannot just let the market decide, because the market is failing in the case of clean energy and carbon emissions. But we have a responsibility to help the market work better. So yes, creating green jobs is a sensible aspiration for governments.

Can we build a green economy strong enough to lift poor people out of poverty and put the economy on a road to recovery? Absolutely. Will we get the job done? That depends on leaders acting wisely in both the private and the public sector. As for me, I don't believe it is ever a good idea to bet against the ingenuity, hard work and decency of the American people, and I believe in the American tradition of good government on the side of innovation and enterprise.

The moderator has encouraged us to discuss the infamous (and now debunked) "Spanish study", which last year alleged that every green job in Spain destroyed two other jobs in the economy. That notion went viral and was even cited in Congressional testimony. The "study" was subsequently exposed as a rigged-up set of prefabricated conclusions, based on dodgy calculations, ideology and guesswork. It is a testament to Mr Morriss's commitment to methodological rigour that he has thus far refused to attempt to revive or play that fraudulent card. For that, too, I applaud him.

ANDREW P. MORRISS H. Ross and Helen Workman Prof. of Law and Prof. of Business, University of Illinois College of Law

Andrew P. Morriss is the inaugural H. Ross and Helen Workman Professor of Law and Professor of Business at University of Illinois College of Law. He is also a Research Fellow of the NYU Center for Labor and Employment Law, a Senior Fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center, Bozeman, Montana; a Senior Scholar at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University; and a regular visiting professor at Universidad Francisco Marroquín in Guatemala. Professor Morriss is a Senior Fellow for the Houston-based Institute for Energy Research (IER), which conducts historical research and evaluates public policies in the oil, gas, coal and electricity markets. He is the author or coauthor of over 50 book chapters and articles on environmental law, regulatory policy, and employment law as well as a coauthor (with Bruce Yandle and Andrew Dorchak) of Regulation by Litigation (Yale University Press, 2008) and coeditor (with Gerald Korngold) of Property Stories (Foundation Press, 2009).

In his reply, Van Jones repeats the mistakes of his opening. He still doesn't talk about net jobs since he still doesn't count jobs lost, he still doesn't have a coherent definition of "green" so that we can debate just what he is planning to spend our money on, he still doesn't address the long history of failed government involvement in energy markets, and he still doesn't understand how markets work.

Mr Jones says we cannot leave "our energy security" to the "magic of the marketplace" because existing markets are "distorted and dysfunctional". He asserts that we should instead have wise government officials make decisions for us. But those "distorted and dysfunctional" markets that Mr Jones worries about are "distorted and dysfunctional" precisely because wise people in government made choices about how to intervene to promote "our energy security" in earlier years. Governments have been talking about "energy security" and massively intervening to promote it since the first world war. They have been doing the same on environmental grounds since the 1960s. Today's "distortion" was yesterday's policy choice.

Mr Jones disagrees with those choices; that is why he says we have "distorted and dysfunctional" energy markets rather than "wisely designed" ones. He is right; we do indeed have distorted and dysfunctional energy markets. But for us to do better today, either government officials now must be wiser than their predecessors or special interests must have less influence today. Neither is true.

Are we wiser?

Since we are smarter and know more today, this argument goes, today's officials will make better choices than yesterday's. This may be true; even if they aren't smarter, today's government officials certainly know more than did the officials in the 1960s who designed the Mandatory Oil Import Programme (MOIP) (intended to reduce our dependence on foreign oil through import quotas), the officials in the 1970s who launched the synfuels programme (designed to create a substitute for gasoline to reduce our dependence on foreign oil), or the officials in the 1990s who insisted that gasoline include methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) and ethanol as oxygenates (to improve air quality). Today's officials at least know that import quotas do not reduce our dependence on foreign oil, that the technologies backed by the synfuels programme don't work, and that MTBE and ethanol are environmental disasters.

One problem with this explanation is that we will know even more tomorrow. Instead of enshrining today's imperfect knowledge in statues and regulations on top of our past mistakes, as Mr Jones proposes, our efforts today are better devoted to undoing those past mistakes: We don't need to put our thumbs on one side of the scale if we take them off the other.

Are we less susceptible to special interests today?

Perhaps those past mistakes are the result of special interests manipulating governments rather than ignorance. It's true that energy programmes have historically been grotesquely distorted by special-interest lobbying even compared with other areas of government, from MOIP's incentive for investment in wasteful "tea kettle" refineries that added no value beyond qualifying their owners for quotas for today's environmentally damaging corn-based ethanol programmes. Mr Jones waves his wand and, somehow, we have scrubbed all those interests out of the public policymaking process and an ethical, disinterested, wise set of experts and public officials are going to distribute public funds without falling into these traps.

But other than assuring us that today's officials are disinterested public servants, Mr Jones hasn't addressed any of the structural features of our government that help special interests raid the public's wallets. Campaign contributions, lobbyists, entrenched members of legislatures, secretive committee mark-ups, closed-door White House meetings with special interests—all of these shape the details of legislation and regulations under Republicans and Democrats alike and his proposals are no different. Corn ethanol is entrenched in our energy policy not because the people who back it are too stupid to see it is a bad idea but because special interests like Archers Daniels Midland (ADM) have ferociously efficient lobbying operations. Put the kind of money Mr Jones wants to spend on the table for any form of alternative energy and those same interests will influence it the same way. Other than the naked assertion that his proposals are different, Mr. Jones has nothing to say about how we can do all the wonderful things he wants to use the government to do without letting ADM have the keys to your bank account. The reason he hasn't is that he can't. Congress proves with every energy bill that special interests drive US energy policy.

Yesterday's mistakes predict today's.

Mr Jones accuses me of wanting to leave things to the magic of the market instead of letting wise government officials direct policy. But there's no magic in markets: markets work because people economise on expensive things. That incentive has led to some impressive conservation. To take just one example, the energy used in steel production fell by 80% from 1950 to 2006, a drop caused by firms' desire to cut costs to stay competitive (my co-authors and I cite many more in our work). No magic, just incentives.

Mr Jones, on the other hand, does want to rely on magic. His magic is a spell that removes special interests from government energy policy and allows government officials special access to knowledge about the future so they can choose technologies for us. This really would be magic because we have recent and clear examples of governments doing precisely the opposite. The corn ethanol programme is exactly the kind of programme Mr Jones is advocating today, even if he now dislikes it. It was a federal energy mandate with the avowed intention of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and improving environmental quality. It turned out to do neither, and to damage both our environment and our economy. That is a powerful indictment of the institutional arrangement Mr Jones wants to use to shape our future and one for which he had no response. We deserve better.

About Siemens

Siemens AG (NYSE: SI) is a global powerhouse in electronics and electrical engineering, and operates in the industry, energy and healthcare sectors. For more than 160 years, Siemens has built a reputation for leading-edge innovation and the quality of its products, services and solutions. With 405,000 employees in 190 countries, Siemens reported worldwide revenue of $104.3 billion in fiscal 2009. With its U.S. corporate headquarters in New York City, Siemens in the USA reported revenue of $21.3 billion and employs approximately 64,000 people throughout all 50 states and Puerto Rico. For more information on Siemens in the United States, visit www.usa.siemens.com

Comments from the floor

Dear Sir,
When did government's function become 'creating' jobs. Specially since they are so horribly, terrifically, spectacularly bad at it!
How about regulating carbon, and FORCING business and industry to spend the money and create the jobs to solve this vast, public problem?

Here in Alberta, it's obvious that the oil-sands are only going to get bigger. America demands its oil fix. The provincial government has just caved on new royalties, but mandating cleanups would create tons of jobs. And surely SOMEBODY could get elected saying so?

Dear Sir, Yesterday at a Best Buy store I saw a "green" computer. I knew it was green because the placard told me so and the top was open so I could see the flashing green lights inside. Whoever did that display probably understood the reality of green better than the rest of us. They knew it is to do with words and images, and more being charged for less, not with any underlying reality.

Dear Sir,
The motion is worded so broadly that interpretation becomes crucial. My initial reading was whether government should encourage green jobs, probably "good". Re-reading seemed to indicate that the green jobs should be government sponsored, somewhat questionable, maybe "good" and maybe "bad". But government does not need to hire people to create jobs, all it needs to do is tweak the tax code to encourage green actions. The United States tax code does this all the time. Tax breaks are available for new storm windows, insulation, and green construction. (It is possible to argue that nothing about the tax code is "sensible", but apart from that,) the US government tax provisions seem to demonstrate in writing that: "creating green jobs is a sensible aspiration for governments." Case proven.

Mr. Morriss did better this time, and Mr. Jones managed to keep his pace from last time. Mr. Moriss definitely deserves credence by stressing the impact lobbying and special interests would have on "green" subsidies.

However, Mr. Jones, I think, still has more gravity to his argument in pointing out the instability that can be brought on by a one-way energy policy, fossil fuels only. Mr. Morriss's argument still suffers from his claim that all subsidies should be eliminated. It is funny that he gives so much credit to the market and ignores how it distorts government subsidies. He seems to be of the mind that our legislators and regulators are at fault but not the puppetmasters of the market, yet he is perfectly willing to leave all market fluctuation, evolution, growth, and innovation in their hands.

While the pro camp has made a convincing argument, I fear that they will win this debate because of the popular 'rightness' of two propositions among the internet fraternity.

First, it is right that governments take action to combat climate change.

Second, it is right that governments take action to ensure that jobs are created for the benefit of their people, particularly in difficult economic circumstances such as those in which we now reside.

The split of the vote at present does, I believe, fairly reflect popular opinion on those two points if considered individually.

However, as Robert Navin pointed out on Day 2 of this debate, the consideration should not be made separately.

While green jobs are commendable, it may be that job creation could be more effective elsewhere, in for example, expanding agriculture, construction or research industries, rather than building wind farms and solar panels in less suitable locations.

Similiarly, the most viable green option for a particular country may be one that, in the short term at least, cuts jobs - perhaps closing coal fired power stations and replacing them with less labour intensive nuclear alternatives, to give a simplistic example.

My view, therefore, is that the motion should be voted down, due to the fact that in trying to use a single policy to address two very different problems, governments may overlook the best available solution to one or both problems.

In the long term, it is in everyone's interest that employment policy and environmental policy not become irretrievable intertwined.

There will be times when feeding your family must come before saving the atmosphere, and a time when selfish considerations about employment must take a back seat to the preservation of our greatest resource - the world in which we operate.

If a solution can be found which effectively solves both problems, then so be it, but the merits must be considered in isolation.

You've missed some multipliers. Government support for green jobs brings us closer to distributed ownership of distributed energy assets. As this becomes the norm, it will support healthy local economies worldwide and provide significant resilience in facing all kinds of disasters. As solar roofs replace tin roofs globally, and as microgrids and multiple storage options reduce the need for new power grids, more people will join the Web and the electric tool-using middle class. As the value of the global economic network grows, the global medium income level, which citizens of developed nations are sinking to, will rise. Van has my vote.

Dear Sir,
This is the second part of my comment below on why the goverment could and should create green jobs. When I mentioned Big Government's ability over the years to directly and indirectly create jobs across a variety of sectors, I forgot to mention the French. For all of American Conservatives attacks on 'French Socialism',France has a very energy efficient market economy through direct government intervention or dirigisme. When the French got bitten in 1973 with the energy crisis, they were quick to learn a lesson, which we failed to do. They turned their net lack of natural resources such as oil and coal into a net advantage by saying "Non" to being hold over a barrel of oil and invested radically in nuclear power and TRAIN A GRANDE VITESSE or high speed rail, with the result that France derives 80% of its electricity from an almost zero emmisions source and that its competitiveness is served by a railnetwork that is far mor efficient than that of America's and which has multiplied benefits for the whole of Europe. This is an example of green jobs that were directly created whose multiplied effect was to green the French economy in general, with the added benefit of guranteeing relatively high growth, despite France's inefficiencies in other areas.

Moreover, it should be clear to all that the government should not aspire to create green jobs as merely a matter of prestige. It should be done because it is also a duty of governments to sustain the welfare of life on this planet and to sustain the national security of its citizens and to sustain and strengthen liberal democratic capitalism. Climate change is taking place and it is taking place in rapid proportions that bode catastrophic consequences for humanity if not averted. There are social-politiical-economic victims already, with Sub-Saharan African and Asian farmers unable to water crops to survive and thrive because of the rapid declines of glaciers in once snow rich mountains,with decreasing rainfall leading to the erosion of pastureland in Darfur, breeding armed conflict and posing dangers to economies that have a significant basis in agriculture, such as Australia , which has had a nearly decade long drought. There are also the people of New Orleans who lost their homes in one of the most powerful hurricanes to hit the US. The decline of resources like oil would motivate countries everywhere to play out rivalries over energy resources diplomatically and even in the force of arms. Moreover, we cannot hope to create jobs by drilling for more oil in the US as some are proposing. That merely denies new sources of job creation an opportunity to grow and signals to the markets that America will continue to demand oil, setting the trend with high oil prices and revenues for certain oil producing nations. The end result is a weakening of liberal democratic capitalism and the strenghtening of petrol-based kleptocratic authoritairianism in countries like Venezuela,Iran and Russia, holding those economies back as their governments can buy people's silence to oppression through more of the same or through welfare goods and wealth and incomes that otherwise would have been created end up in the pockets of those with access to power. The net result is the continuation of growth in carbon intensive and politically dirty jobs. Moreover, economies like America, Germany, Britain,Japan, France and others could decide whether they want ever expanding trade deficits, with the result that the economic balance of power shifting towards countries that disdain globalization and democracy by continuing on the same path of consuming oil, or they can regain the iniative by investing in creating green jobs. Moreover, the more oil we consume, the more dependent we become on the Middle East, leading to the same affects as mentioned regarding Russia. The difference being that those affects, through the American wealth redistributed to the Saudi Religious Affairs Ministry, goes towards building mosques that turn out young men who kill American and British soldiers in Afghanistan, oppress women, keep entire nations in the middle ages and fly crowded airliners into our tallest buildings, killing men, women and children.

In closing, I affirm that the aspiration of governments to create green jobs is an aspiration that leaders like Barack Obama could and should aspire to. Economic history shows that it can be done , with revolutionary results and the crises facing relations between Western and Islamic civilizations, liberal democratic capitalism and globalization and the environment convey that it should be done as a duty to the earth and the wellbeing of its people in many different respects.

Dear Sir,
I believe that the government can and should create green jobs. The reason why I think the government has the ability to create green jobs is based on economic history. Whilst government involvement poses certain dangers, it must be remembered that Big Government contributed greatly towards gearing America for WWII, enabling America to turn the tide in Western Europe and the Pacific. Moreover, it was Big Government that funded and sustained the space program, with the end result that those jobs created multiplied throughout the economy by creating a strong scientific research base over the years that has led to spin off technologies in the fields of transport,IT, aerospace and communications, to name a few examples. Moreover, it was Big Government that sustained America's military-technological superiority throughout the Cold War, with the added benefit of creating a burst in higher incomes. Need I remind you that the end result was not only victory, but a continious technological boom, with the internet arisng out of DARPA[Defense Advanced Research Agency]. In other words, we wouldn't have Google or the I-Phone if it weren't for government efforts to create jobs.
Moreover, once the government embarks on research and development of breakthrough technologies, the US tends to keep the research economy going, so that new jobs are constantly created. For example, the national laboratories that produced the Manhattan Project are still going and they still have potential for both military and civilian innovations. So the notion that the government does not have the capability to aspire to create green jobs is disproved. Moreover, governments have already started creating green jobs with some success. For all of the critiscism of regulation loving California, by phasing in a system of incentives and regulations, the state has gone some way in forcing corporations from utilities to car manufacturers to invest in energy saving processes. The end results are a saving of money by both business and consumers and a net creation of jobs.Moreover, the state of California and Silicon Valley in particular point to the benefits of creating green jobs via a cap and trade program or a carbon tax and redistributive program. In the New York Times, Thomas Friedman wrote about two such new entrepreneurs who, if given the right amount of motivation and incentives by the Federal Government, could potentially revolutionize how we think of energy and the economy, creating green jobs and guaranteeing that even the most carbon intensive of jobs can become green. Vinod Khosla of Sun Microsystems fame is currently developing a start-up called Calera, in which sea water can be combined with carbon emissions from coal and gas fired power plants to produce calcium carbonate, hence capturing the emissions, and creating a new carbon minus raw material for construction. This, if taken to scale, would end a few jobs, but the potential for actually eliminating co2 emmissions and creating a new sustainable economy whose competitivness would be safeguarded would far outweigh the costs. Imagine the export jobs created and the elimination of oil imports that are so costly for busines. The second satrt-up mentioned is Bloom Energy, founded by K.R Sridhar, who is actually a former NASA scientist [hence proving Big Government's ability to create jobs that would create more jobs] is marketing Bloom Boxes which are basically using fuel cells derived from natural gas and biogas to generate cheap electricity at 10 cents a kilowatt hour.Currently, mulitnational giants such as Google,Coca-Cola, Walmart,eBay and FedEX are all investing in these fuel cell boxes because they are betting that by generating their own clean energy, they can drastically cut their own carbon emissions and save money, with the end result being the generation of green and clean jobs throughout the economy. Moreover, in the same column, the columnist mentioned how developing countries' economic development is held back by the lack of an energy infrastructure, leading to an opportunity cost of jobs not being created. With the US government providing the right incentives, America would have the power, through investing in green jobs, to create jobs at home and abroad.

Dear Sir, So what you are saying is that there are divides in the classification of green jobs, with some being ok, like energy, but water not been good, I would of said water should be more green than energy, and what happens if you use water to create energy?

Dear Sir,
Would it be too much to expect government and business to collaboratively engage the complexity of the issue together?

Jones' argument is definitive and dismissive: "The market is failing". Morriss' is more conditional; "Officials must be wiser"... "special interests must have less influence."
We know there is a growing Gap betweeen deliberative and participatory democracy. Increasingly, those who participate are separating from those who deliberate.(See Dianna Mutz)
My sympathies are with Jones. but my personal experience with offering Jones a source of over 220,000 green infrastructure jobs a year for the next 10 years is one of being patronizingly dismissed. He sees jobs in energy but not in water.
Jones is right about green infrastructure jobs, but the arrogance of his position blinds him to the potential of his own vision.

2.2 million job and 220 billion in economic activity with potential multiplier affects of 2.38 for Jobs an 6.35 that has the support of a former Assistant EPA Administrator for the Office of Water has been patronizingly dismissed by Jones and others in government who were so focused on the energy aspects of climate change that they could not take the time to listen to, nevermind consider, the integrated water resource management elements of climate change

Our programatic structures flow money more easily to energy than they do to water.

I tried to get a congressional representative interested in the same job formation issue and was told that water is handled at the state level and they were at the national level so it was out of their jurisdiction.

I struggled with my vote.

You can no longer convince me that government at the state and federal level is serious about real job formation.

My sympathies are with those who long for responsive government but my experience is that when authority is too sure of itself, it fails to do the hard work of engaging the complexity of the issues. In the myopia of its own vision decisions are made that seem to make sense, butin the larger social system in which they must be realized they may have vast and unpredictable consequences. (see the work of Edward Glaeser on property values in Massachusetts)

American competitiveness is not at risk because of climate change. It is at risk because as Oliver Morton suggests we do not have the humility to learn from each other and advance ideas. We are event driven not process driven.

Indeed the threats of CC and peak oil are so dire that we can not let the "market" to eventually stir us from the cliff. The Gov. has now to regulate adequately. But how to do it ?

Experiences and bad Copenhagen outcome have shown us that CC is a too abstract and unclear umbrella that allows loopholes and does not bring everybody together.

It is therefore believed that a clear VISION OF A LOW CARBON FUTURE. is the only way to resolve these above mentioned problems of aligning everybody behind the same objective, thinning out false and not so good solutions and matching bolts with nuts in a well defined strategy.

Moreover, considering the following which has been widely agreed:

a. Climate Changes are caused by an economic system which prioritizes human rights and their unsustainable consumption and mismanagement of
natural resources
b. A large portion of the community has been disenfranchised from the CC issue by a top down decisions making process.
c. This is believed to be a critical flaw as communities should be consulted because they will be the most affected and also have practical knowledge and experiences related to change of climatic conditions on their livelihood;
d. Specially women (as mentioned by our DWEA Minister) from the above - mentioned communities are critical in the decision making as they
are in charge of the well being of families and therefore more inclined to see outside of the present development paradigms for the
good of their communities
e. The fight against climate changes requires the involvement and change of mentality of all to change behaviors and the overall economic system.

Considering that the CC issue remains an abstract concept, it did not trickle down and is not yet being considered nor tackle by the majority;

It would therefore make sense of moving the CC subject to a higher level. Instead of fighting against CC one could consider working for a
"low carbon future.” This broader and positive framework would have the following advantages:

- To deal with CC, peak oil as well as to bring the issue to every individual as everybody is more or less dependant on carbon and oil

- To propose an objective in a positive instead of a defensive way.

This would, is believed help being more proactive and looking for the numerous opportunities linked to the new undertaking;

- To simplify the concept, bring it to grass root level and involved the critical representatives of a large part of the civil society which has been so far side tracked in the process
- To launch a crucial personal and institutional reflection of the many ways we are using fossil fuel and emitting GHG through the
production of energy, food, innumerous oil based material , transport……..

- To give an unambiguous message to each one that any future production (generated by individuals, industries, government institution…) will have to be monitored, very carefully aunched or gradually phased down

- To help recognize real against false solution such as “cap and trade",

It would therefore be necessary to widen any “CC consortia” by also integrating community based organizations and activists which would be
able to make the necessary inter phase with grassroots communities wherein they would launch continuous educational processes related to
a low carbon future.

But it appears that a clear VISION is what is the most wanted with the present government ?

If one understands that the only possible future is a sustainable one and that current environmental, social, and economic trends and business as usual are leading in the opposite direction, to socio-economic and biospheric destabilization and possible collapse, then the only logical response to the houses challenge is affirmative. Of course creating green jobs would be a sensible government aspiration if they led in the direction of durable prosperity and security (sustainability) and away from collapse. However, the devil is in the details. A sensible aspiration does not a method make. So how can the government best execute this aspiration?
After 50 years of environmental research, society has the understanding required for governments to be wiser with policy interventions that reset incorrect market parameters so that the resulting internal private market dynamics produce the real social welfare that is its only claim to legitimacy. After 200 years of the human experiment with democracy, we have the know-how to counter the influence of special interests, economic or otherwise. After 300 years of a phenomenally creative capitalist socio-production revolution, we have the technology and organizational capacity we need to begin to create the green economy and the innovative capacity to invent the rest. We simply need the clarity of will and the strength of leadership.
This debate needs to be understood as a debate over the aspirations of creating a green economy and society that can be an antidote to the ever-accelerating trend towards global climate destabilization and human economic systems collapse (insurance industries will be the first casualties), as well as an antidote to the savaging of a complete range of sustainability parameters that our economy counts as production instead of as the real costs they are, often unrecoverable.

Dear Sir,
Markets fail when they don’t internalize costs and/or benefits as is the case with energy. Someone needs to be a spokesman for the environment, which is not represented in market transactions. NGOs may help, but government must surely have a role in establishing policies that help internalize costs. Whether these policies create or destroy jobs on balance is probably beside the point. I agree with Mr. Stavins that two policy instruments are needed to implement two policies. It does appear, however, that there are labor intensive jobs, e.g weatherizing houses, that will help reduce emissions.

Dear Sir, I have yet to see anything the US Government has done in the past to be any indication government should be involved in green jobs. The more government - the more failure. The tools of the government tend to favor one industry over another based on the whims of our representative government not on a rational basis. If government were to do the "correct" thing wouldn't tariffs on imported ethanol be removed?

Dear Sir,
What does "sensible aspiration" mean? A hope? An objective? A funding priority? Government in my view should not put public money behind creating green jobs, nor should it actively subsidise new technologies. Rather than provide financial incentives for green technologies (green jobs) it should take policy measures to remove the disincentives for investment in green technologies and environment-friendly behaviour.. That is where the problems lie. Inadequate regulation and taxation of polluters; cheap energy prices; ineffective pricing of road access for cars; all these and more encourage an energy wasting-society. The most effective way to change behaviour is to make it too expensive to continue as before. Taxation and regulation are better than grandiose public expenditure initiatives. I don't trust the government, any government, to accurately pick winners. The market is better at doing that. The job of government is to rig the market to get the desired results. We call that "Policy".

Although FAR from perfect, if governments don't steer us in this direction, the Western economies - and the entire planet for that matter – will be insolvent. No pontification, no exaggeration – these are simply the facts.

It would appear that a more balanced approach to all this is to put the priority on proper energy policy; one that encourages the use of clean and renewables and encourages investment in th right tehcnoglies and energy sources. Reduction in carbon emmissions and stable energy supplies need to be the priority. By using government's levers to artifically inflate the price of fossil fuels seems necessary to push long-term investment in renewables, new technology and energy distribution. It seems very unwise to start by adding the commensurate goal of creating green jobs. That may skew the market toward the wrong strategies based on short term job creation goals (e.g. like building roads and bridges leading to nowhere to keep people on the job).

If jobs follow, great. If not, then they never were there to begin with.

Dear Sir,
i think the situation has become clouded - probably with self interest. Isn't this basically about the survival of the human race at a self sustaining decent standard of living together with the other species on the planet?
did I miss something?
Then moving on from that core point- what are we collectively doing about it?. - not much - so who is going to do something? That leaves governments.
Mulgajim